Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:53:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1092 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > > > > > The only
> > > > > > > thing we can do is make sure it happens on our terms. Why in the heck • would
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > wait till after he has the ability to nuke half the world?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that really a risk?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you kidding me? The whole rest of that was completely irrelevant if • you
> > > > > don't see this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scott A
> > > >
> > > > Right now he does not have the nukes, and he does not have a conventional
> > > > delivery system. He is a long way from getting them... and he is getting
> > >
> > > That's what the members of the League of Nations thought about the German
> > > military in the 1930s.
> >
> > Relevance?
> >
> > [BTW: They’d have been right; he did not have nukes ;) ]
> >
> > >
> > > > weaker
> > > > by the day. So, what risk does he pose? What risk does he pose to world • peace
> > > &
> > > > security when compared to Israel, Pakistan, North Korea or even Bush/Blair?
> > >
> > > Oh yeah, Israel is such a threat defending itself and all.
> >
> > Don't make me laugh. Does supporting Israeli belligerence make the USA a safer
> > place?
>
> No but supporting Israeli defence against Palestinian Terrorism does.
But what about Israeli terrorism? See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2146079.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2284344.stm
> Arafat is
> just another dictator that needs to go.
...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2756709.stm
…as are others in the Israeli “military”.
> I highly doubt the US or most other
> "Western" countries would be as patient as Israel has been, given the same
> circumstances.
A number of countries have come under sustained terrorist attacks without
resorting to bombing residential areas. Is that how law enforcement in the USA
works? What gives Israel the right to steal land and bomb civilians?
> >
> > > >
> > > > Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer place?
> > >
> > > It would take about 20 years for Iraq's oil production pay for the cost of
> > > making it usable the way the left-wing extremists keep saying it will.
> >
> > Can you justify that?
>
> The cost of rebuilding the Iraqi oil production infrastructure would be about
> 200 billion.
Can you justify that?
Do your homework:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2702147.stm
“Investment in Iraqi oil fields could see the country double its crude output
following a change of regime, a leading opposition figure has told world
leaders. Adil Abdul Mahdi, president of the Iran-based Supreme Council of the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that, with an injection of $30-40bn,
production could be raised to 5-6 million barrels per day by 2010.”
> Iraqi oil production only generates about 10 billion a year. Do
> the math.
It is ~$10B under sanctions – are you suggesting lifting sanctions will make no
difference!
Do your homework:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2688401.stm
“In its oil-producing heyday in the late 1970s, Iraq was producing 3.5 million
barrels a day. Industry analysts estimate that with large-scale investment in
the country's rusting industrial infrastructure, this could be upped to six
million. This would make Iraq the fourth largest producer, behind Saudi Arabia
(8.8 million), the US (7.2 million) and Russia (7.1 million).”
> >
> > > Obviously Iraq's oil has little to do it anything with the possiblity of war.
> >
> > Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s oil make the USA a safer
> place?
>
> Stealing oil is not an objective.
What is the objective then?
> If it was it would be easier to just nuke the
> country without regard to the innocent cilivians.
> >
> > > >
> > > > After your assertion that there were scary similarities between the current
> > > > situation and 1930’s Europe, how about this one:
> > > >
> > > > A world leader takes advantage of nationalism, jingoism and xenophobia to • take
> > > > his nation on an ill-advised military adventure in order to strengthen his
> > > > country, but in the end actually weakens it.
> > > > ;)
> >
> > No answer?
>
> Didn't feel one was necesary considering only 47 percent of the US supports
> action without the approval of the UN.
Are you part of that 47%?
> >
> > >
> > > I heard a funny thing on the news about the Protest in Washington. It was
> > > organized by ANSWER. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism)
> > > http://www.InternationalANSWER.org/
> > > Right on their page is the following statement: "Support Self Determination • for
> > > the People of the Middle East"
> >
> > Perhaps they should work on Self Determination for the people of the USA 1st? • ;)
> >
> > > So by stopping the war and preserving a
> > > dictatorship that publicly executes civilians who voice disagreement is how • we
> > > "Support Self Determination for the People of the Middle East"
> >
> > Has Bush picked a stooge to replace SH yet? Or will Mr Franks just run the
> > country? Mr Exxon? No mention of human rights or democracy here:
> > http://www.sundayherald.com/27735
> >
> > > Digging around the ANSWER site a little you will come across this site:
> > > http://www.workers.org/wwp.php
> >
> > Looks like a different site to me?
>
> Yeah one of the supporters of ANSWER.
I'm sure all sorts of trash support Bush; is he responsible for them? Is he
responsible for Enron? [that’s maybe a bad question ;-\ ]
> >
> > > Now everything makes perfect sense. This whole thing isn't about whats best • for
> > > the people of Iraq it is about instituting the great ideal of communistic
> > > socialism on everyone and fighting the evil capitalist US. (yes sarcasm was
> > > intended)
> >
> > What is “communistic socialism”, and why is it worse for the people of Iraq
> > than the “evil capitalist US”?
>
> See the 'other' thread for why socialism is bad and capitalism is not.
I can't remember “communistic socialism” or Iraqi culture being mentioned in
that?
> >
> > What's your point? [Would you feel better if the Coca Cola company sponsored
> > the march?] Does all this mean the war would be right? What does Bush care
> > about "what’s best for the people of Iraq"? What respect does he have for • "Self
> > Determination"? In fact what is your country’s record on supporting "Self
> > Determination" since WW2? It certainly has a poor record in the Middle East
> > [Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine etc]. But what about the wider world? Need I
> > mention Central America?
>
> Hence earlier point that the UN (not just the US acting alone) should stop all
> that crap and rebuild the countries without the dictators.
Easy to say. But I doubt you support UNSCR 242? …and what about in 1990 when
the UN wanted to send inspectors in after an Israeli gunman had shot seven
Palestinian civilians, the US vetoed the wishes of other 14 countries on the
council – do you support that? What about UNSCR 687 which aimed to removed WOMD
from the ME region – do you support that?
...so why start with SH? Because he has oil? Because he does not have a “lobby”
in the USA?
> I think you
> misunderstand my position with that of total agreement with Bush/Blair. I only
> agree with about 60 percent of what they are saying.
... but what 60%? ;)
Scott A
>
> -Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| [snip] (...) Now that is really interesting. Then again they gave Arafat a Nobel peace prize too. [snip] (...) no (...) All of that falsely assumes Saddam would not destroy the oil infrastructure as a parting gift. (...) war. (...) Freeing the Iraqi (...) (22 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) would (...) you (...) peace (...) No but supporting Israeli defence against Palestinian Terrorism does. Arafat is just another dictator that needs to go. I highly doubt the US or most other "Western" countries would be as patient as Israel has (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
